planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:08 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 45
I was wearing some flip-flops in the backyard last weekend that came equipped with the Halo technology from the manufacturer . While maneuvering a twisty part of a walkway a young upstart tried to pass me on a narrow part of the track where there was not enough room to pass and I was forced off of the track . Though my footwear was equipped with a Halo device I still suffered an injury as a result (a stubbed toe ) . This technology is simply not ready for Formula 1 without more testing .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4002
Location: Michigan, USA
Blake wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Yup. Fighter jet canopy looks better, protects you better, and is faster.

Literally the only thing against it is if you want to maintain the (in my opinion, arbitrary) historical distinction of being open-cockpit.

I would think an inverted race car might be a problem with a canopy... just a thought. And yes I know about explosive bolts, that would still leave the car inverted barring some kind of "James Bond" self-righting technology.

That's true, but there won't be very many situations where an inverted car actually poses a hazard to the driver. If the driver is severely injured he wouldn't be able to get out by himself anyway, in all likelihood; maybe if he was bleeding badly from a non-incapacitating injury, but you have to weigh that against the fact that an inverted car with a canopy is incapable of digging in to gravel or dirt.

Everyone usually thinks of an out of control fire, but that's really a thing of the past in modern Formula One. The engine can from time to time shoot some fire, but with the modern fuel tanks that don't rupture it never leads to the car simply burning entirely. A crew of competent marshals can easily put out the sort of oil fires we see before they become a problem.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4002
Location: Michigan, USA
kls2020 wrote:
I was wearing some flip-flops in the backyard last weekend that came equipped with the Halo technology from the manufacturer . While maneuvering a twisty part of a walkway a young upstart tried to pass me on a narrow part of the track where there was not enough room to pass and I was forced off of the track . Though my footwear was equipped with a Halo device I still suffered an injury as a result (a stubbed toe ) . This technology is simply not ready for Formula 1 without more testing .

:lol:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:06 pm
Posts: 202
mds wrote:
I can't help but feel that the FIA have done their research and have a positive case to introduce it - they know most fans think it's ugly as heck and they still go forward with it.


I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like to see the scenarios that FIA have considered and their conclusions for each, as I don't see it myself.

For me "ugly" is an invalid argument when it comes to safety issues, so I'm not even thinking about that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:56 pm
Posts: 819
The cars are already very safe. I don't see the point of introducing the Halo ugliness. I realize that "safety" is a triggering buzz word that almost everyone gets behind, and that's fine under most circumstances, but we are not talking about street cars here. This is the top echelon of racing and some acceptable level of risk has to be there. Otherwise, they might just as well switch to racing virtual cars in a computer simulation. If safety is paramount over everything else, then that is the only logical conclusion.

On a more practical level, I wonder how the Halo will affect the drivers' field of vision. It has been tested under practice laps conditions so far, but not in the heat of first corner melee or an ambitious overtake attempt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11458
SmoothRide wrote:
The cars are already very safe. I don't see the point of introducing the Halo ugliness. I realize that "safety" is a triggering buzz word that almost everyone gets behind, and that's fine under most circumstances, but we are not talking about street cars here. This is the top echelon of racing and some acceptable level of risk has to be there. Otherwise, they might just as well switch to racing virtual cars in a computer simulation. If safety is paramount over everything else, then that is the only logical conclusion.

On a more practical level, I wonder how the Halo will affect the drivers' field of vision. It has been tested under practice laps conditions so far, but not in the heat of first corner melee or an ambitious overtake attempt.


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6354
SmoothRide wrote:
This is the top echelon of racing and some acceptable level of risk has to be there. Otherwise, they might just as well switch to racing virtual cars in a computer simulation. If safety is paramount over everything else, then that is the only logical conclusion.

No it's not, I see this argument a lot and I think it's flawed.

We're not talking about making cars driverless for safety and we aren't talking about putting speed limits on the cars for safety. The case in hand is that by putting some additional protection around the drivers head we can stop incidents like Massa, Surtees and Wilson's (not necessarily the Halo but head protection in general).

The argument should be about the case in hand, whether it will improve safety or whether it will be easy to implement, not some hypothetical scenarios where people are calling for virtual racing. That's just a deflection, you're arguing against something that nobody is advocating.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11458
But it does detract from the show. So many involved have even said that. To follow the logic to it's natural conclusion would be to have driver-less cars? I mean is it worth someone dying so we can watch cars race round in circles with people actually in them?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:59 pm
Posts: 1868
but what is the Halo going to do in terms of safety that other systems already in place do as well?

This won't stop another Massa/Hungary incident. a small piece of something from another car isn't going to be stopped if it's at that same height and it's more likely that a driver will have small pieces of cars come at them than a wheel (Which the wheel tethers should prevent from happening anyway).

I've also yet to see any evidence that the drivers can get out of a upturned car (Ala Alonso in Australia) speedily or safely.

Nothing about Halo makes me think it's safe.

_________________
the loon previously known as dr lee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:56 pm
Posts: 819
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
SmoothRide wrote:
This is the top echelon of racing and some acceptable level of risk has to be there. Otherwise, they might just as well switch to racing virtual cars in a computer simulation. If safety is paramount over everything else, then that is the only logical conclusion.

No it's not, I see this argument a lot and I think it's flawed.

We're not talking about making cars driverless for safety and we aren't talking about putting speed limits on the cars for safety. The case in hand is that by putting some additional protection around the drivers head we can stop incidents like Massa, Surtees and Wilson's (not necessarily the Halo but head protection in general).


I understand that it's a controversial argument and that we are unlikely to ever agree on where the threshold of safety lies. I think that we are just about where we need to be, seeing very few deaths or injuries in F1 in the past couple of decades. Strategic improvements are still possible, but I don't think that Halo is the right choice.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:
The argument should be about the case in hand, whether it will improve safety or whether it will be easy to implement, not some hypothetical scenarios where people are calling for virtual racing. That's just a deflection, you're arguing against something that nobody is advocating.


I would get behind that argument, except for the fact that we are already on the safety threshold in my opinion. Let's say that we introduce a feature into the car's on-board software such that the car automatically slows down when a potential risk is detected, based on nearly instantaneous digital analysis, regardless of whether a driver sees it or not. It will save lives over time so there is an on-hand argument that it should be implemented. The technology required to do it is already there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9132
Location: Ireland
mikeyg123 wrote:
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?

I'm not sure about Bianchi being saved. From what I can recollect the sheer force of the impact caused the diffuse axonal injury. I think the halo would have saved Maria de Villota

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6354
mikeyg123 wrote:
But it does detract from the show. So many involved have even said that. To follow the logic to it's natural conclusion would be to have driver-less cars? I mean is it worth someone dying so we can watch cars race round in circles with people actually in them?

No one is even close to saying we should have driverless cars and it takes one hell of a leap to get there from putting some protection over a drivers head. IMO is just a deflection to something easier to argue against.

I agree with concerns about the effectiveness of these devices and while I personally don't mind I understand people won't like how the cars look with a closed canopy etc. I also get that an open cockpit is a big part of what F1 has always been to date so there are nostalgic reasons to not want them. What I don't see as a legitimate argument is inventing a far fetched hypothetical scenario and saying 'do we want this?' when that's not what the debate is about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11458
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?

I'm not sure about Bianchi being saved. From what I can recollect the sheer force of the impact caused the diffuse axonal injury. I think the halo would have saved Maria de Villota


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6595
Location: Belgium
SmoothRide wrote:
On a more practical level, I wonder how the Halo will affect the drivers' field of vision. It has been tested under practice laps conditions so far, but not in the heat of first corner melee or an ambitious overtake attempt.
The front pylon not being too far away from the eyes will limit any hindrance. The HALO itself might make it more difficult to see the start lights, but I guess the other drivers will just have to watch Bottas instead. ;)

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:47 am
Posts: 18
I think a lot of people are missing a big part of the bringing in of the halo. looking back and saying which drivers in the past would this have saved is not the point. yes it wont stop a massa type incident but you have to look at in no in terms of which incidents in the past it would have prevented but what i can prevent in future.

i think if you look at it like that it makes more sense, the chances of wheels coming off in a large collision does still happen, especially when 3/4/5 cars get tangled up when in close proximity to other cars, particually at the start or a close restart. tethers do work but we still see large parts of bodywork and wheels flying around and with fire etc becoming less of a threat these days there needs to be a preemptive look at what the dangers are in the future to drivers. flying debris is one of the main dangers and this is a way to try to protect them before something else happens with a wheel or a nose cone.

yes its not pretty but its the first attempt, as it becomes standard im sure it will be refined over seasons, but looking backwards is not the right aproach, looking to the future and putting in measures for the dangers faced in modern F1 can only be a good thing.

say next season a big shunt happens and a wheel comes down on a car, everyone will be singing its praises.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6595
Location: Belgium
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?

I'm not sure about Bianchi being saved. From what I can recollect the sheer force of the impact caused the diffuse axonal injury. I think the halo would have saved Maria de Villota
Would you mind explaining that? My information is far from adequate, but I would think just the opposite would be the case.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11458
Fiki wrote:
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?

I'm not sure about Bianchi being saved. From what I can recollect the sheer force of the impact caused the diffuse axonal injury. I think the halo would have saved Maria de Villota
Would you mind explaining that? My information is far from adequate, but I would think just the opposite would be the case.


The force of the impact would not have been reduced. So the same diffuse axonal injury would still have occurred. I personally think the halo would have buckled under such force anyway and been forced into Bianchi but that is just a guess on my part. Seeing as it ripped the top section of the car off I can't see it surviving.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:42 pm
Posts: 363
Blake wrote:
Exediron wrote:
moby wrote:
a vid of the testing

Yup. Fighter jet canopy looks better, protects you better, and is faster.

Literally the only thing against it is if you want to maintain the (in my opinion, arbitrary) historical distinction of being open-cockpit.


I would think an inverted race car might be a problem with a canopy... just a thought. And yes I know about explosive bolts, that would still leave the car inverted barring some kind of "James Bond" self-righting technology.


The problem with the fighter jet canopy is the tyre deflects from the canopy at quite a rapid rate. Which means there's a serious chance a wheel could fly off into the crowd after deflecting off the canopy. I'm surprised the video didn't mention that as I've read it in quite a few reports. I think this is why for the time being the FIA is against using a fully enclosed canopy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6595
Location: Belgium
Pest44 wrote:
Blake wrote:
Exediron wrote:
moby wrote:
a vid of the testing

Yup. Fighter jet canopy looks better, protects you better, and is faster.

Literally the only thing against it is if you want to maintain the (in my opinion, arbitrary) historical distinction of being open-cockpit.


I would think an inverted race car might be a problem with a canopy... just a thought. And yes I know about explosive bolts, that would still leave the car inverted barring some kind of "James Bond" self-righting technology.


The problem with the fighter jet canopy is the tyre deflects from the canopy at quite a rapid rate. Which means there's a serious chance a wheel could fly off into the crowd after deflecting off the canopy. I'm surprised the video didn't mention that as I've read it in quite a few reports. I think this is why for the time being the FIA is against using a fully enclosed canopy.

Also, I believe many underestimate the weight of the canopy tested. It's from an F-16 as far as I can see. Perhaps I could try to find out its weight.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4384
Pest44 wrote:
Blake wrote:
Exediron wrote:
moby wrote:
a vid of the testing

Yup. Fighter jet canopy looks better, protects you better, and is faster.

Literally the only thing against it is if you want to maintain the (in my opinion, arbitrary) historical distinction of being open-cockpit.


I would think an inverted race car might be a problem with a canopy... just a thought. And yes I know about explosive bolts, that would still leave the car inverted barring some kind of "James Bond" self-righting technology.


The problem with the fighter jet canopy is the tyre deflects from the canopy at quite a rapid rate. Which means there's a serious chance a wheel could fly off into the crowd after deflecting off the canopy. I'm surprised the video didn't mention that as I've read it in quite a few reports. I think this is why for the time being the FIA is against using a fully enclosed canopy.

In that scenario even without a canopy that tire is going to deflect and carom off somewhere as well. At least the driver taking the initial contact would be protected as well as any other drivers if it deflects back on to the track.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4384
While I don't think the Halo is the most elegant solution to the problem I think a lot of people dismissing it's effectiveness in a situation like Massa's because of the open areas aren't taking how objects move in space into consideration.

Even a bullet fired from a gun does not travel in an absolutely flat trajectory, and debris coming off of a race car even less so, and these things also rarely come straight down either.

To take the Massa accident as an example. The spring that came off of Rueben's car wasn't hanging in midair when it hit Massa's helmet, it was bouncing down the track and was on a downward trajectory when it hit. Had there been a Halo like device on the car the chances of there being an identical impact to what actually happened are very slim. Without knowing what the exact trajectories and speeds involved I can't say what would've happened in that case but there are 4 possibilities that I'll list in what I think is the order of likelihood from most likely to least likely.

1. Initial impact is a glancing blow to the top of the Halo toward the inner side. Which results in deflecting the spring to a different, and stronger part, of Massa's helmet with less velocity since some would've been lost hitting the Halo. He still might've been concussed and knocked out, so would still spear into the tire wall, but chances of cranial fractures much lower.

2. Initial impact is direct enough to deflect the spring and miss hitting Massa at all.

3. Initial impact is a glancing blow toward the bottom of the Halo on the outer side. Which could result in the spring being deflected down into the cockpit hitting Massa in the hands or maybe legs. Could've still lost control and had a big accident but odds of massive head trauma much lower.

4. Exact same velocity and trajectory as without anything in place. All the same bad things happed.

Edit: There are obviously more than 4 possibilities, but I tried to pick things that are easy to type out that cover the spectrum of possible outcomes.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1482
RaggedMan wrote:
While I don't think the Halo is the most elegant solution to the problem I think a lot of people dismissing it's effectiveness in a situation like Massa's because of the open areas aren't taking how objects move in space into consideration.

Even a bullet fired from a gun does not travel in an absolutely flat trajectory, and debris coming off of a race car even less so, and these things also rarely come straight down either.

To take the Massa accident as an example. The spring that came off of Rueben's car wasn't hanging in midair when it hit Massa's helmet, it was bouncing down the track and was on a downward trajectory when it hit. Had there been a Halo like device on the car the chances of there being an identical impact to what actually happened are very slim. Without knowing what the exact trajectories and speeds involved I can't say what would've happened in that case but there are 4 possibilities that I'll list in what I think is the order of likelihood from most likely to least likely.

1. Initial impact is a glancing blow to the top of the Halo toward the inner side. Which results in deflecting the spring to a different, and stronger part, of Massa's helmet with less velocity since some would've been lost hitting the Halo. He still might've been concussed and knocked out, so would still spear into the tire wall, but chances of cranial fractures much lower.

2. Initial impact is direct enough to deflect the spring and miss hitting Massa at all.

3. Initial impact is a glancing blow toward the bottom of the Halo on the outer side. Which could result in the spring being deflected down into the cockpit hitting Massa in the hands or maybe legs. Could've still lost control and had a big accident but odds of massive head trauma much lower.

4. Exact same velocity and trajectory as without anything in place. All the same bad things happed.

Edit: There are obviously more than 4 possibilities, but I tried to pick things that are easy to type out that cover the spectrum of possible outcomes.


In Scenario 3, could that be potentially more dangerous if it deflects to a body part which doesn't have something as solid as a helmet protecting it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4002
Location: Michigan, USA
Fiki wrote:
Also, I believe many underestimate the weight of the canopy tested. It's from an F-16 as far as I can see. Perhaps I could try to find out its weight.

An actual F-16 canopy is close to 200 pounds, as near as I could find (which wasn't all that near!). But an F-16 is a good deal larger than an F1 car, and the canopy covers a larger area; I'm sure they could get the weight down. It would always add something significant, though, that much is irrefutable.

I also suspect an actual F-16 canopy is much stronger than needed for F1.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7280
Exediron wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Also, I believe many underestimate the weight of the canopy tested. It's from an F-16 as far as I can see. Perhaps I could try to find out its weight.

An actual F-16 canopy is close to 200 pounds, as near as I could find (which wasn't all that near!). But an F-16 is a good deal larger than an F1 car, and the canopy covers a larger area; I'm sure they could get the weight down. It would always add something significant, though, that much is irrefutable.

I also suspect an actual F-16 canopy is much stronger than needed for F1.


Maybe it does not need to be sheet, a gridwork is used on windows for stock and rallyX


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4384
Ennis wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
While I don't think the Halo is the most elegant solution to the problem I think a lot of people dismissing it's effectiveness in a situation like Massa's because of the open areas aren't taking how objects move in space into consideration.

Even a bullet fired from a gun does not travel in an absolutely flat trajectory, and debris coming off of a race car even less so, and these things also rarely come straight down either.

To take the Massa accident as an example. The spring that came off of Rueben's car wasn't hanging in midair when it hit Massa's helmet, it was bouncing down the track and was on a downward trajectory when it hit. Had there been a Halo like device on the car the chances of there being an identical impact to what actually happened are very slim. Without knowing what the exact trajectories and speeds involved I can't say what would've happened in that case but there are 4 possibilities that I'll list in what I think is the order of likelihood from most likely to least likely.

1. Initial impact is a glancing blow to the top of the Halo toward the inner side. Which results in deflecting the spring to a different, and stronger part, of Massa's helmet with less velocity since some would've been lost hitting the Halo. He still might've been concussed and knocked out, so would still spear into the tire wall, but chances of cranial fractures much lower.

2. Initial impact is direct enough to deflect the spring and miss hitting Massa at all.

3. Initial impact is a glancing blow toward the bottom of the Halo on the outer side. Which could result in the spring being deflected down into the cockpit hitting Massa in the hands or maybe legs. Could've still lost control and had a big accident but odds of massive head trauma much lower.

4. Exact same velocity and trajectory as without anything in place. All the same bad things happed.

Edit: There are obviously more than 4 possibilities, but I tried to pick things that are easy to type out that cover the spectrum of possible outcomes.


In Scenario 3, could that be potentially more dangerous if it deflects to a body part which doesn't have something as solid as a helmet protecting it?

It certainly is a possibility. Hitting his hand I would imagine could've caused a lot of damage that kept him out of the car for a while. I don't believe, although this is all speculation, that the spring could've ricocheted directly from the Halo into his torso which could cause sever internal injuries. Maybe a secondary bounce off the body of the car could do that but then there'd be two force-dissipating strikes before hitting the drivers body.

Then again the time window for the spring to hit the car at all is probably a second and the window between dropping down just right to recreate what did happen and hitting a hypothetical Halo enough to lessen the effect is a fraction of that which is why I don't discount the chances that it could've played out the same. I just believe that the cross member of the Halo is positioned such that there is a high probability that it would've intersected the trajectory of the spring.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9132
Location: Ireland
Fiki wrote:
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?

I'm not sure about Bianchi being saved. From what I can recollect the sheer force of the impact caused the diffuse axonal injury. I think the halo would have saved Maria de Villota
Would you mind explaining that? My information is far from adequate, but I would think just the opposite would be the case.

If I'm not mistaken it wasn't the impact of his helmet against the tractor that caused the injury, it was the 254G force that his body endured that caused the brain tissue to separate

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 892
RaggedMan wrote:

To take the Massa accident as an example. The spring that came off of Rueben's car wasn't hanging in midair when it hit Massa's helmet, it was bouncing down the track and was on a downward trajectory when it hit. Had there been a Halo like device on the car the chances of there being an identical impact to what actually happened are very slim.


That is pure speculation on your part. I don't buy it at all. Ruben's might have been saved by a halo, but it would have been by pure chance, not by design. A part that small can bounce (and impact) in an infinite number of ways. The halo blocks only a tiny fraction of those vectors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:38 am
Posts: 173
They should have incorporated a closed cockpit into a set of regulations with a completely new type of car and done it properly. If you decide that the driver's head needs protecting from debris, then you must change it into a closed cockpit formula. The Halo is a half-measure. I'm sure we'll all get used to the look of it, but if debris gets around it and kills someone, we'll move to a completely closed cockpit anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7280
Underviewer wrote:
They should have incorporated a closed cockpit into a set of regulations with a completely new type of car and done it properly. If you decide that the driver's head needs protecting from debris, then you must change it into a closed cockpit formula. The Halo is a half-measure. I'm sure we'll all get used to the look of it, but if debris gets around it and kills someone, we'll move to a completely closed cockpit anyway.



But where do you stop?
They would be far safer with the seat facing the other way and driving in screen etc, and that would be far safer for G damage too, or even go the whole way and have them remote piloted from a seat in the pit.

Not making light of your post, I agree, it is just that you can do more, and more, and more, then a one in a million event nullifies it all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4384
Herb Tarlik wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:

To take the Massa accident as an example. The spring that came off of Rueben's car wasn't hanging in midair when it hit Massa's helmet, it was bouncing down the track and was on a downward trajectory when it hit. Had there been a Halo like device on the car the chances of there being an identical impact to what actually happened are very slim.


That is pure speculation on your part. I don't buy it at all. Ruben's might have been saved by a halo, but it would have been by pure chance, not by design. A part that small can bounce (and impact) in an infinite number of ways. The halo blocks only a tiny fraction of those vectors.

I never presented it as anything other than my opinion, but it was a considered opinion and I gave my reasoning.

It's true that there are many vectors that I didn't list and I did say that it was still possible for it to have been just as bad. What I was pointing out is that those who say that it wouldn't have had any effect in a case like in Hungary are just dismissing it out of hand and not considering the fact that there were two moving objects and not just the car.

If you were to graphically sketch out a volume that envelops all of the possible vectors for an object to travel that would allow it to contact a drivers head and subtract the those that would be excluded by having a Halo in place you'd probably be surprised how big that exclusion zone would be.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2792
Here are renders of the 2016 cars with colour coded halos.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/conc ... lo-830324/

They don't look as bad, and it's still the prototype design, so the final design could be more elegantly shaped if necessary. I think that after a few years and aesthetic refinements people will stop noticing them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1138
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Here are renders of the 2016 cars with colour coded halos.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/conc ... lo-830324/

They don't look as bad, and it's still the prototype design, so the final design could be more elegantly shaped if necessary. I think that after a few years and aesthetic refinements people will stop noticing them.

If all the cars look a bit like that it's a complete disaster and the the end of Formula 1. I'll never watch again...

:)

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 6:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10241
Herb Tarlik wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:

To take the Massa accident as an example. The spring that came off of Rueben's car wasn't hanging in midair when it hit Massa's helmet, it was bouncing down the track and was on a downward trajectory when it hit. Had there been a Halo like device on the car the chances of there being an identical impact to what actually happened are very slim.


That is pure speculation on your part. I don't buy it at all. Ruben's might have been saved by a halo, but it would have been by pure chance, not by design. A part that small can bounce (and impact) in an infinite number of ways. The halo blocks only a tiny fraction of those vectors.


Well, word of the FIA is they have tested millions of angles and the halo blocked 17%. Not sure what you see as "tiny" but these are the numbers.

_________________
Supporting all drivers with surnames starting with "V".

Proud member of the "It's Toro Rosso, not Torro Rosso" action committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6595
Location: Belgium
Exediron wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Also, I believe many underestimate the weight of the canopy tested. It's from an F-16 as far as I can see. Perhaps I could try to find out its weight.

An actual F-16 canopy is close to 200 pounds, as near as I could find (which wasn't all that near!). But an F-16 is a good deal larger than an F1 car, and the canopy covers a larger area; I'm sure they could get the weight down. It would always add something significant, though, that much is irrefutable.

I also suspect an actual F-16 canopy is much stronger than needed for F1.
That depends. I was rather surprised to see it withstand a wheel and tyre shot at it. But the main thing the F-16 canopy has, that is better than the Ferrari shield, is that it doesn't significantly affect what you see outside. If it did, it couldn't serve as a fighter. I'm sure weight could be saved, because a F1 car doesn't need the part of the canopy behind the driver. But I think a large part of its strength comes from being a canopy rather than a shield.

It's an interesting subject.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6595
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?

I'm not sure about Bianchi being saved. From what I can recollect the sheer force of the impact caused the diffuse axonal injury. I think the halo would have saved Maria de Villota
Would you mind explaining that? My information is far from adequate, but I would think just the opposite would be the case.


The force of the impact would not have been reduced. So the same diffuse axonal injury would still have occurred. I personally think the halo would have buckled under such force anyway and been forced into Bianchi but that is just a guess on my part. Seeing as it ripped the top section of the car off I can't see it surviving.

mcdo wrote:
If I'm not mistaken it wasn't the impact of his helmet against the tractor that caused the injury, it was the 254G force that his body endured that caused the brain tissue to separate
As far as I can see on footage, his helmet did strike the side of the tractor. The HALO, being positioned higher, and being wider, would have prevented his helmet from a direct hit on the tractor body. I believe that the HANS and shock-absorbing cockpit coaming would have significantly improved his chances. Let's not forget that Jules survived the impact.

Edit: a thought just popped into my head. The HALO structure could be fitted with airbags, out of the regular lines of sight for the driver. So could a shield or a canopy of course.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9132
Location: Ireland
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?

I'm not sure about Bianchi being saved. From what I can recollect the sheer force of the impact caused the diffuse axonal injury. I think the halo would have saved Maria de Villota
Would you mind explaining that? My information is far from adequate, but I would think just the opposite would be the case.


The force of the impact would not have been reduced. So the same diffuse axonal injury would still have occurred. I personally think the halo would have buckled under such force anyway and been forced into Bianchi but that is just a guess on my part. Seeing as it ripped the top section of the car off I can't see it surviving.

mcdo wrote:
If I'm not mistaken it wasn't the impact of his helmet against the tractor that caused the injury, it was the 254G force that his body endured that caused the brain tissue to separate
As far as I can see on footage, his helmet did strike the side of the tractor. The HALO, being positioned higher, and being wider, would have prevented his helmet from a direct hit on the tractor body. I believe that the HANS and shock-absorbing cockpit coaming would have significantly improved his chances. Let's not forget that Jules survived the impact.

Edit: a thought just popped into my head. The HALO structure could be fitted with airbags, out of the regular lines of sight for the driver. So could a shield or a canopy of course.

The point is that his head directly hitting the tractor wasn't the cause (to the best of my recollection). He would have suffered the same brain injury if his head hadn't made contact with the tractor

(Any brain injury experts feel free to jump in and correct)

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11458
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?

I'm not sure about Bianchi being saved. From what I can recollect the sheer force of the impact caused the diffuse axonal injury. I think the halo would have saved Maria de Villota
Would you mind explaining that? My information is far from adequate, but I would think just the opposite would be the case.


The force of the impact would not have been reduced. So the same diffuse axonal injury would still have occurred. I personally think the halo would have buckled under such force anyway and been forced into Bianchi but that is just a guess on my part. Seeing as it ripped the top section of the car off I can't see it surviving.

mcdo wrote:
If I'm not mistaken it wasn't the impact of his helmet against the tractor that caused the injury, it was the 254G force that his body endured that caused the brain tissue to separate
As far as I can see on footage, his helmet did strike the side of the tractor. The HALO, being positioned higher, and being wider, would have prevented his helmet from a direct hit on the tractor body. I believe that the HANS and shock-absorbing cockpit coaming would have significantly improved his chances. Let's not forget that Jules survived the impact.

Edit: a thought just popped into my head. The HALO structure could be fitted with airbags, out of the regular lines of sight for the driver. So could a shield or a canopy of course.


He did hit the tractor but that was not what killed him. It was his diffuse axonal injury that killed him (widely reported). That is not an impact injury as such.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19856
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mcdo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
What is the most recent life this would have saved in F1?

I'm not sure about Bianchi being saved. From what I can recollect the sheer force of the impact caused the diffuse axonal injury. I think the halo would have saved Maria de Villota
Would you mind explaining that? My information is far from adequate, but I would think just the opposite would be the case.


The force of the impact would not have been reduced. So the same diffuse axonal injury would still have occurred. I personally think the halo would have buckled under such force anyway and been forced into Bianchi but that is just a guess on my part. Seeing as it ripped the top section of the car off I can't see it surviving.

mcdo wrote:
If I'm not mistaken it wasn't the impact of his helmet against the tractor that caused the injury, it was the 254G force that his body endured that caused the brain tissue to separate
As far as I can see on footage, his helmet did strike the side of the tractor. The HALO, being positioned higher, and being wider, would have prevented his helmet from a direct hit on the tractor body. I believe that the HANS and shock-absorbing cockpit coaming would have significantly improved his chances. Let's not forget that Jules survived the impact.

Edit: a thought just popped into my head. The HALO structure could be fitted with airbags, out of the regular lines of sight for the driver. So could a shield or a canopy of course.

Not that I'm an expert on airbags, but it's my understanding they are triggered by sudden deceleration, so unless they can be set off another way I don't think they'd work in an F1 car. But maybe someone with more knowledge than me can confirm?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6595
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
He did hit the tractor but that was not what killed him. It was his diffuse axonal injury that killed him (widely reported). That is not an impact injury as such.
I know, I read the FIA report. But that doesn't change the fact that every possible item that provides extra decelaration in case of an accident is worth implementing. Unless we are happy with the results of the actions taken after Bianchi's accident, which made sense. But if we are, then why do we still accept dangerous driving, running people off the track, etc.

I think putting in the VSC was long overdue, provided one likes a race to go on with the actual racing suspended. But that is another discussion.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: UK
A half-baked solution to a problem that doesn't really exist in F1. As far as I'm concerned F1 ceases to be an open cockpit format with these silly things on the cars, which is fine if that's the route they want to go down, but why not do it properly and have a full canopy if they're serious about protecting the drivers from debris? A fully enclosed cockpit has been well proven to work safety-wise for LMP1 cars, but instead we have to go with this hideous tacked-on solution of dubious effectiveness just to give the pretence that F1 remains an open cockpit formula.

Ridiculous. Hope it's scrapped.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], owenmahamilton, Siao7 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group